Flickr

21 September 2007

Another day, another marketing campaign masquerading as health information

So, today I went to the vet with one of my dogs, and while I was waiting, I looked at the pamphlets in the little rack in the otherwise barren exam room. I picked up one that I'd never seen before.

It was from Fort Dodge, and it was a pamphlet about something called Canine Enteritis Complex. And I'm all, what the heck? I do tend to keep up on canine health issues, dear readers, and I had no clue what this dread new disease was.

That would be because it's not a disease and it's not new. "Many disease agents," it said, frighteningly, "can cause Canine Enteritis Complex, a potentially deadly inflammation of the small intestine. Some common enteritis-causing pathogens in dogs are parvovirus, coronavirus, and giardia lamblia, a microscopic protozoan that can severely damage the lining of the small intestine."

It goes on to tell us that "These pathogens are highly contagious and can be spread between dogs." What's more, "A published study"... will wonders never cease? A published study!... "showed a dual infection with parvo and corona was fatal in 90 percent of cases." And hey, they had a footnote, which I'll get to in a minute.

They also added that "Pre-existing Giardia infection can make disease from parvovirus more severe," and guess what? Another footnote!

So, after the obligatory advice to ask your veterinarian (or, as I'm sure Fort Dodge thinks of them, their marketing partners) "about a vaccination program that includes protection against enteritis-causing pathogens such as parvovirus, coronavirus, and Giardia," we get to the footnotes.

Now, you'd think for something I've never heard of before, this newly discovered trifecta of canine intestinal doom, we'd have some pretty cutting edge science. They must surely cite some new studies, hot off the presses, for me to not have seen them before. Right?

Wrong. Because those footnotes cite one study that is 19 years old, and another that is 25 years old.

No, dear dog lovers, the diseases are old, the citations are old, even the vaccines being promoted are old. The only thing new is the marketing campaign.

So, what is this campaign trying to get you to do? First, they want you to answer a few questions to determine if your dog is at risk -- although the cover of the brochure has already told you he is. "At risk" , they say, would be any dog who drinks from puddles, is around other dogs, or is less than six months of age. So, "Don't take chances. Make sure your dog is protected from Canine Enteritis Complex by vaccinating routinely against parvo, corona, and Giardia."

Well, should you? Before asking if you should vaccinate your dog with this combination of antigens, ask about each one on its own -- starting with canine coronavirus.

Except in very young puppies -- puppies too young to be vaccinated -- coronavirus does not cause clinical disease in dogs. Researchers cannot induce disease with it in the laboratory. Many, perhaps most, dogs have coronavirus in their intestine all their lives. (Schultz, "Emerging Issues: Vaccination Strategies for Canine Viral Enteritis," 1995.)

Texas A&M University's "Vaccine Protocols and Schedule" tells us, "(T)here are no studies that show that use of the vaccine reduces morbidity or mortality." (Mansfield 1996.) That means it neither makes vaccinated dogs get sick less frequently, nor get less seriously ill, nor die less frequently. I would guess that's why this one is so often called a "vaccine in search of a disease."

Perhaps the presence of coronavirus does make parvo more deadly, but -- and you can call me crazy -- if this virus doesn't cause illness on its own, but only if the dog also gets parvo, it seems that the proper response to that threat is to prevent parvo.

The problem, of course, is the second vaccine being promoted here, the one for parvo. That pesky vaccine is just too good. Apparently once a dog is immune to parvo, he's immune for years and years, probably his whole life. So, hey... it's tough out here for a drug company, in this post-annual vaccination age!

Fortunately, the third piece of this marketing puzzle, giardiasis, is a vaccine for a protozoal disease, and, like all vaccines for protozoal diseases, this one totally sucks! That means you have to give it over and over and over, like, every single year!

In fact, the giardia vaccine sucks so bad at preventing giardiasis that it's not even licensed or labeled to prevent giardiasis! It's only supposed to be used as part of a total treatment plan.

The manufacturer doesn't even state that it cures or prevents giardiasis, simply that it decreases the shedding of cysts. One study showed "there was no significant difference between the (vaccinated and unvaccinated) groups. Vaccination was, therefore, not an effective treatment for asymptomatic canine Giardia infections in this setting."

Of course, that study was not absolutely dripping with cobwebs of antiquity like the ones Fort Dodge used, being only from 2004. ("Impact of Giardia vaccination on asymptomatic Giardia infections in dogs at a research facility," Canadian Veterinary Journal, Nov 2004.)

If canine coronavirus is a vaccine in search of a disease, I would have to say that Canine Enteritis Complex is a disease in search of a marketing campaign. And it's found one. So if you do decide to ask your vet about it, as Fort Dodge advises, these are the questions I suggest you ask:

What evidence do you have that this vaccine protocol will actually protect my dog from any disease?

What is the benefit of this combination over vaccinating for parvo by itself? If my dog is immune to parvo already, is there any benefit in re-vaccinating him for parvo, or giving any of these vaccines at all?

Why isn't the giardia vaccine licensed to prevent giardia?

Why doesn't the AAHA recommend the giardia vaccine?

Why does not one single vet school in the United States recommend the canine coronavirus vaccine?

Advertising campaigns and marketing brochures from a company trying to sell you something are not good places to get medical advice. Not if you're a pet owner, and not if you're a veternarian either. Because given the facts, you have to ask yourself: Was this protocol designed to treat and prevent canine disease, or treat and prevent a diminished bottom line for the vaccine manufacturer?

Christie,
I remember when it was claimed that Lepto was going to be a worse epidemic than parvo and it turned out to be a "vaccine in search of a disease." And, of course, vaccines against bacteria (Lepto, Lyme, Bordetella, etc.) don't have such a good track record either. We're all trying to reduce the number of vaccines our pets get, and these guys have to come up with new scare tactics.

I love the sarcastic skepticism. Love. I wonder how many people think that a glossy pamphlet must be gospel. I have a theory that the more money spent on glossy paper and stock photos, the weaker the underlying value.

Did you ask your vet why they had this pamphlet in their office? Do you still see this vet? Maybe they aren't pushing this yet in Canada, but I will keep my eyes open. Great site, wonderful information and excellent witty tone! (I found you on Blogher.)